Further evidence in support of the validity of the post-secondary student stressors index using a nationwide, cross-sectional sample of Canadian university students

Brooke Linden; Heather Stuart

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0278897

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionMarch 3, 2022
2 Aug 2022 Decision Letter - Lorena Verduci, Editor PONE-D-22-06413 Further evidence in support of the validity of the Post-Secondary Student Stressors Index using a nationwide, cross-sectional sample of Canadian university students PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Linden, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Please note that we have only been able to secure a single reviewer to assess your manuscript. We are issuing a decision on your manuscript at this point to prevent further delays in the evaluation of your manuscript. Please be aware that the editor who handles your revised manuscript might find it necessary to invite additional reviewers to assess this work once the revised manuscript is submitted. However, we will aim to proceed on the basis of this single review if possible. The manuscript has been evaluated by one reviewer, and his comments are available below. The reviewer has raised a number of concerns. He requests improvements to the reporting of methodological aspects of the study, for example, regarding the characteristics of the institutions and definition of post-secondary education. The reviewer also requests revision to discussion. Could you please carefully revise the manuscript to address all comments raised? Please submit your revised manuscript by Sep 16 2022 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript: A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Lorena Verduci Staff Editor PLOS ONE Journal requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf". 2. Please provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal, and if verbal, how it was documented and witnessed). If your study included minors, state whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians. If the need for consent was waived by the ethics committee, please include this information. 3. Thank you for stating the following in the Competing Interests section: “I have read the journal's policy and the authors of this manuscript have the following competing interests: BL is the developer of the Post-Secondary Student Stressors Index (a non-financial conflict of interest). HS is the Bell Canada Mental Health and Anti-Stigma Research Chair.” Please confirm that this does not alter your adherence to all PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials, by including the following statement: ""This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.” (as detailed online in our guide for authors http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests). If there are restrictions on sharing of data and/or materials, please state these. Please note that we cannot proceed with consideration of your article until this information has been declared. Please include your updated Competing Interests statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. 4. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability. Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized. Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access. We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter. 5. We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For more information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts: a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide. 6. We note that you have included the phrase “data not shown” in your manuscript. Unfortunately, this does not meet our data sharing requirements. PLOS does not permit references to inaccessible data. We require that authors provide all relevant data within the paper, Supporting Information files, or in an acceptable, public repository. Please add a citation to support this phrase or upload the data that corresponds with these findings to a stable repository (such as Figshare or Dryad) and provide and URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers that may be used to access these data. Or, if the data are not a core part of the research being presented in your study, we ask that you remove the phrase that refers to these data. 7. Your ethics statement should only appear in the Methods section of your manuscript. If your ethics statement is written in any section besides the Methods, please delete it from any other section. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 5. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: This manuscript is a continuation of previous studies that provides additional evidence to support the use of an indicator on stressors in students in Canada. With this, it seeks to identify the main sources of stressors and improve mental health services. The creation of the instrument and its validation fills a gap well exposed by the researchers related to the fact that there is no such tool with the participatory approach that is proposed. Major comments 1. Do the participating institutions have the same characteristics? I am referring to whether there may be different sources of stress depending on the profile of the participating institution. Perhaps it would help to mention that the type of institutions was comparable if they were. 2. Is there a difference between post-secondary education and higher education? I understand that it includes not only universities, but also other types of educational institutions. I recommend clarifying what you mean by post-secondary education. 3. According to the domains of stressors and their respective items, (although the development of the instrument should be in another publication) could you describe how these were chosen and how was this a participatory process? 4. I recommend getting more out of the results in the discussion. An important topic that could be included in the discussion is that when identifying the sources of stress, it comes to light that most of them have nothing to do with the quality and quantity of mental health services in institutions. Rather, the sources of stress come from, for example, scheduling, organization and evaluation methods, communication and relationship between teachers and students, or even sexual harassment on campus. How do the authors think these sources of stress can be addressed on campus? can they be addressed? is there an example of that? Minor comments References. Data presentations, spelling, grammar, reagent word. 1. I recommend changing the post-secondary keyword since it's in the title. 2. There is an error in the results since it says that the ages range from 16 to 20 years and in the table it is up to 30. ****** 6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: No ******** [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0278897.r001
Revision 1
20 Sep 2022 Author Response Response to Reviewers Manuscript #PONE-D-22-06413: “Further evidence in support of the validity of the Post-Secondary Student Stressors Index using a nationwide, cross-sectional sample of Canadian university students” Thank you to the reviewers for the opportunity to revise this manuscript. Please find below point-by-point responses to your inquiries, comments, and suggestions. Reviewer #1: This manuscript is a continuation of previous studies that provides additional evidence to support the use of an indicator on stressors in students in Canada. With this, it seeks to identify the main sources of stressors and improve mental health services. The creation of the instrument and its validation fills a gap well exposed by the researchers related to the fact that there is no such tool with the participatory approach that is proposed. Comment 1: Do the participating institutions have the same characteristics? I am referring to whether there may be different sources of stress depending on the profile of the participating institution. Perhaps it would help to mention that the type of institutions was comparable if they were. Response: Thank you for this question. In fact, this was one of the questions we sought to answer through this cross-Canada, multi-site study, and indeed something that we are investigating in additional analyses. For example, we were interested in learning whether patterns of stress would appear to be different based on region in Canada, size of campus, and nature of campus (with respect to them being “commuter” campuses, where students typically live off campus and drive in to attend school vs. non-commuter campuses, where the vast majority of students live on or very near campus). These are all research questions that are being answered in additional sub-studies of this data, as they are beyond the scope of this particular paper. For the purposes of this paper, we sought to investigate whether the psychometric properties of the index would remain stable and similar to what we observed in our pilot study at a single, Eastern Ontario university. In fact, we note that a major goal of the study was to collect further evidence of validity using a larger, more varied sample (line 66-68) – therefore the strong psychometrics our analyses revealed using this sample given the hypothesized variation in institutions’ characteristics lends additional strength to our findings. Comment 2: Is there a difference between post-secondary education and higher education? I understand that it includes not only universities, but also other types of educational institutions. I recommend clarifying what you mean by post-secondary education. Response: No, “post-secondary education” and “higher education” are synonymous. The PSSI was developed and intended to be used across different types of higher education institutions, including universities and colleges (hence “post-secondary stressors index”, and not “university stressors index”). However, the reviewer has likely noted that the majority of the participating institutions in this sample were universities (the one exception being Aurora College). Admittedly, this is a limitation of the tool as it has not yet been widely tested among college populations (this is in the works). In response to this comment, we have now reviewed all instances throughout the manuscript where we have referred to “post-secondary” and adjusted this to “university” as appropriate (note that the word university is used when we refer to our sample or the applicability of the PSSI, but when referencing general mental health statistics for post-secondary student populations, for example, the word post-secondary is used as these stats apply to both university and college populations. We have also added a statement in our limitations section regarding the lack of testing to date among college populations potentially limiting the generalizability of the PSSI in that context (lines 283-286). Comment 3: According to the domains of stressors and their respective items, (although the development of the instrument should be in another publication) could you describe how these were chosen and how was this a participatory process? Response: The reviewer is correct that details regarding the development of the PSSI have been published elsewhere (please see Linden & Stuart 2019 [doi: 10.1186/s12889-019-7472-z] and Linden, Boyes & Stuart 2020 [doi: 10.1080/07448481.2020.1754222]). Briefly, the PSSI was developed through detailed consultation with students, including the selection and naming of the domains. Naming of the domains was decided over the course of multiple focus group interviews with diverse groups of students. Comment 4: I recommend getting more out of the results in the discussion. An important topic that could be included in the discussion is that when identifying the sources of stress, it comes to light that most of them have nothing to do with the quality and quantity of mental health services in institutions. Rather, the sources of stress come from, for example, scheduling, organization and evaluation methods, communication and relationship between teachers and students, or even sexual harassment on campus. How do the authors think these sources of stress can be addressed on campus? can they be addressed? is there an example of that? Response: With respect to this component of the author’s statement: “…when identifying the sources of stress, it comes to light that most of them have nothing to do with the quality and quantity of mental health services in institutions”, we are unable to comment as we did not do any analytic work that might provide support for a relationship (or lack of relationship) between he quality/quantity of mental health services provided on campuses and the stressors students are experiencing. While we appreciate the reviewer’s recommendation to add more discussion around the specific items that students identified as impactful sources of stress, we feel that would be beyond the scope of the present paper, which aims only to provide a concise assessment of the instrument’s psychometric properties. In fact, we have recently published an alternative paper that goes into detail regarding this exact question, exploring the stressors identified by students as impactful across each of the domains, as well as looking at whether trends appeared over time. We invite the reviewer to refer to Linden, Stuart, and Ecclestone 2022 (doi: 10.1177/07067437221111365). Comment 5: I recommend changing the post-secondary keyword since it's in the title. Response: This keyword has now been changed to “university”. Comment 6: There is an error in the results since it says that the ages range from 16 to 20 years and in the table it is up to 30. Response: If the reviewer is referring to lines 167-168 in the “Sample” subsection under results, we state that the majority of respondents fell between the ages of 16 and 20, not all of the respondents (41.4% of our sample was under the age of 21, while the other age categories account for considerable smaller proportions of the sample). For clarity we have adjusted this sentence to read “Most participants were aged 20 years or younger…” to better align with the age categories as displayed in Table 1. Please note that in reviewing this paragraph, we did notice some inconsistencies in the proportions reported in text - these have all now been fixed to align with the numbers in the table (lines 164-169). Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0278897.r002
14 Nov 2022 Decision Letter - Supat Chupradit, Editor PONE-D-22-06413R1Further evidence in support of the validity of the Post-Secondary Student Stressors Index using a nationwide, cross-sectional sample of Canadian university studentsPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Linden, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Please submit your revised manuscript by Dec 29 2022 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript: A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Supat Chupradit, Ph.D., M.Ed., B.Sc.(OT), B.P.A., B.Ed., B.A. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation. Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed Reviewer #4: All comments have been addressed ******** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes Reviewer #4: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes Reviewer #4: Yes ****** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes Reviewer #4: Yes ****** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes Reviewer #4: Yes ****** 6. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: I have reviewed the responses given by the authors to my comments. I am satisfied with the answers and recommend the publication of this manuscript. Reviewer #2: Overall, this paper is quite interesting and has been revised based on the feedback of a previous reviewer. However, there are some areas that need improvement. The Abstract should be written in one paragraph only. The demographic data of the samples should be mentioned in the Research method, not the Research results. Reviewer #3: Further evidence in support of the validity of the Post-Secondary Student Stressors Index using a nationwide, cross-sectional sample of Canadian university students. This manuscript revision, I'm accept all comments that author response. Accept Reviewer #4: Thank you for considering my comments and suggestions. I am satisfied with the responses. All the best for your article. ****** 7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: Yes: Mónica Suárez-Reyes Reviewer #2: Yes: Kittisak JERMSITTIPARSERT Reviewer #3: No Reviewer #4: No ******** [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0278897.r003
Revision 2
14 Nov 2022 Author Response Response to Reviewers Manuscript #PONE-D-22-06413: “Further evidence in support of the validity of the Post-Secondary Student Stressors Index using a nationwide, cross-sectional sample of Canadian university students” Thank you to the reviewers for the opportunity to revise this manuscript. Please find below point-by-point responses to your inquiries, comments, and suggestions. Journal Requirements: Comment 1: Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice. Response: The reference list (and in-text citations) have now been reviewed and are correct. Reviewer Comments: Comment 1: The Abstract should be written in one paragraph only. Response: We have now shortened the abstract to be the length of a single paragraph. Comment 2: The demographic data of the samples should be mentioned in the Research method, not the Research results. Response: We have elected not to make this requested change as we feel it is more appropriate to have the demographic statistical results reported in the Results section with all other results. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0278897.r004
25 Nov 2022 Decision Letter - Supat Chupradit, Editor Further evidence in support of the validity of the Post-Secondary Student Stressors Index using a nationwide, cross-sectional sample of Canadian university students PONE-D-22-06413R2 Dear Dr. Linden, We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements. Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication. An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org. Kind regards, Supat Chupradit, Ph.D., M.Ed., B.Sc.(OT), B.P.A., B.Ed., B.A. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation. Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed Reviewer #4: All comments have been addressed ******** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes Reviewer #4: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes Reviewer #4: Yes ****** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes Reviewer #4: Yes ****** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes Reviewer #4: Yes ****** 6. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: The authors have responded to my comments satisfactorily. The article is interesting and provides relevant information on the study of health promotion in the university context. I recommend accepting the article. Reviewer #3: Further evidence in support of the validity of the Post-Secondary Student Stressors Index using a nationwide, cross-sectional sample of Canadian university students. Overall improve by reviewer's comments. accept. Reviewer #4: Further evidence in support of the validity of the Post-Secondary Student Stressors Index using a nationwide, cross-sectional sample of Canadian university students. I approve this manuscript that revise version. ****** 7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: Yes: Mónica Suárez-Reyes Reviewer #3: No Reviewer #4: No ******** https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0278897.r005
Formally Accepted
7 Dec 2022 Acceptance Letter - Supat Chupradit, Editor PONE-D-22-06413R2 Further evidence in support of the validity of the Post-Secondary Student Stressors Index using a nationwide, cross-sectional sample of Canadian university students Dear Dr. Linden: I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org. If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access. Kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Assistant Professor Supat Chupradit Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0278897.r006

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .